Doe v. Hyassat
- Ona Wang
- 1:18-cv-06110
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Doe v. Hyassat, Judge Wang granted Doe’s request to seal medical records and redact identifying details from supporting documents.
Jane Doe and her mother, whose identifying information was requested to be redacted, as well as public access to the specified medical records and supporting documents.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. Mutaz Hyassat, Jane Doe asked the Southern District of New York for permission to file hospital and ophthalmologist records under seal and to redact names and locations in three supporting documents. The motion concerned materials submitted with her findings and damages-related memorandum.
Doe said the medical records contained sensitive health information and that the affidavits and a neuropsychologist’s letter described a sexual assault, its effects, and related neurological issues. She also sought to protect her identity, her mother’s identity, and their locations.
The court granted the application. Judge Ona T. Wang therefore allowed the requested filing under seal and the requested redactions, as described in the application.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Hyassat · No. 1:18-cv-06110
- Ona Wang
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
Jane Doe, who was already proceeding under the name “Jane Doe,” submitted an application concerning documents accompanying her findings of fact and conclusions of law and an inquest memorandum. The application was filed in a case involving allegations of rape and sexual assault.
Requested protection
Doe asked for permission to file hospital and ophthalmologist records under seal as Exhibits D–G to a declaration. She also asked to file redacted versions of her affidavit, her mother’s affidavit, and a letter from treating neuropsychologist Dr. Eric Watson, identified as Exhibits A–C. The requested redactions concerned Doe’s name and location, her mother’s name and location, and identifying information appearing in Dr. Watson’s letter.
The application argued that the medical records contained sensitive information about Doe’s physical, mental, and emotional conditions. It also argued that the affidavits and letter contained sensitive details about the sexual assault and its continuing effects, and that limiting public access was justified despite the general presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible.
Ruling
The court stated: “Application GRANTED. SO ORDERED.” The order therefore granted Doe’s application to file the specified medical records under seal and to file the specified affidavits and letter with the requested redactions. The opinion text does not provide a separate explanation beyond the granted application.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.